davemc wrote:5. Linux still has a long long looooooooooong ways to go to get to the point where it can truthfully claim that everything "just works". To say otherwise right now is a bold faced lie and should never be stated until, in fact, EVERYTHING "just works" with no tweaking required by the user.

XP has all of the above plus more. This is due mostly to unfair business practices by M$ (IMO), yet it is true for the average user. I have never...ever..experienced a BSOD in any windows ive had running, and ive ran them all. I have never ~not~ been able to get any application working in windows with more than a simple click of a button, nor have I ever met anyone who could ~honestly~ claim that they couldnt.

That's simply not true. Not because you're being dishonest, but because the end-user rarely sees what happens behind the scenes. Anyone who's ever done a straight reinstall on a Windows machine will know what I mean when I say that I'd prefer dependency hell any day over searching for Windows drivers by hand. When you do a straight Windows install, there're all kinds of crap you'll have to download from various vendors' websites to get things working. This is not (nearly as) true of Linux.

The problem is that Joe user never realizes this, because hardware vendors, trying to support the "standard," install these drivers onto one of their machines, get everything working, take an image of it and spit it out on all of the rest, so that as far as you know, it does "just work."

One opportunity, I think, for the Joe user to realize this is with the release of Vista: many people, especially on 64-bit systems will have problems with driver availability that they won't with Linux. Since Vista is so new at this point, anyone buying a copy of it to upgrade will realize this.

On the subject of usability, Linux and Windows are pretty much equal. The average Linux application, in my opinion, is often easier to configure and more organized than that of a comparable application in Windows. Configuring the system itself, however, tends to seem more abrasive to a new user. In Windows, it's often worse, but the user never has to deal with it. For example, in Linux, a new user may have to do some messing around with configuration files and iptables to open up a port on a software firewall, where in Windows, where the firewall doesn't actually stop anything from connecting, they don't have to deal with it.

I'll never forget a bad memory stick a couple of years ago. XP installed then would BSOD and/or random reboot like crazy. No indication of what the actual problem was. M$ tech support didn't have a clue what the error codes were telling. Their only "fix" was to send the SP2 CD.

It took ONE time booting a Debian Live CD to find out I had bad memory. Once. Period. Stuck the CD in and booted. It told me I needed to run memtest.

frogimus wrote:I'll never forget a bad memory stick a couple of years ago. XP installed then would BSOD and/or random reboot like crazy. No indication of what the actual problem was. M$ tech support didn't have a clue what the error codes were telling. Their only "fix" was to send the SP2 CD.

It took ONE time booting a Debian Live CD to find out I had bad memory. Once. Period. Stuck the CD in and booted. It told me I needed to run memtest.

Now which one is more user friendly?

That example is hardly the litmus test to use for determining such a hefty question. What is, or is not "user friendly" tends to depend on the person involved, but in general one could group a few catagories of subjects like ease of software installations, reconfigurability, hardware/software support, etc.

davemc wrote:After almost 1 solid month of having Sabayon on my machine and having it as my only OS my impression is that Linux will be the future of the desktop world. I believe this to be inevitable for a multitude of reasons, many of which you described. I migrated to Linux because of this, not because XP didnt work for me - because it has allways been a great OS, at least for me. But it has nothing over Linux today other than Gaming, and this is absolutely HUGE! Capture the gaming world, and you've got the market -- the equation is that simple. Linux must be made to be compatible with any game on the market today - free or otherwise. Baby steps are being taken in that direction (wine, cedega), but they are half hearted and feeble at best comparatively speaking. Tailor SL in this direction, and it WILL absolutely become the worlds leading Distro of distro's. King of them all.

I run counter strike source at 50 FPS at 1280*1024 on average with wine on my GeForce 7800 GT.... and that isnt even a very expensive card anymore.... around 200 or cheaper

Wine and Cedega, ID Software, and Epic games have all displayed that their is a market for games on linux.

Games i run on linux:
Quake 4
Tribes 2
Unreal Tournament 2004
Half Life 2 and mods
Half life and mods
Tremulous
ZSNES and visualboy advance
Warsow...
Wolfenstein enemy territory

and soon Enemy Territory Quake wars and Unreal Tournament 2007.

YOU CAN GAME ON LINUX with a decent system...

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY BUY FROM COMPANIES THAT SUPPORT LINUX(And send them letters telling them you use linux):Epic GamesID SoftwareAND WRITE TO THE COMPANIES REQUESTION NATIVE LINUX VERSIONS OF THE GAME YOU WANT!

I have to use Windows daily since I manage an all Windows network at work. At home I use Sabayon on my desktop and PCLOS on my laptop. I don't play games.
I've been slowly introducing Open software to all my users at work. It's slow going but they are seeing the benefits.

Same at home, I set up an old laptop for my in-laws to use. I loaded linux on it since Windows had too high requirements to run on this old system. I really thought they would not like it but they have gotten used to Linux this way and now they take their laptop everywhere.

Davemc, it's up to us to introduce Linux in it's various distros to others. You're right Windows will continue to dominate, but it will lose ground if all Linux users take the time to introduce it to others. You can't just tell people Linux is better you have to show them and SL is one of the best ambassadors we have.

I don't think PC gaming will die out. I also don't think it will ever put consoles out of business. True, the specs on the PS3 seem much lower than a PC of the same price, but trust me, you will NEVER get the same graphical performance on the PC without spending another $500-$1000 (and a lot of effort) on it. Also, the Wii will not die. It is currently the most popular console, at least based on sales. Plus, it's cheap, easy, and fun. And that's exactly what people want when it comes to entertainment. It's even grabbed the interest of a lot of non-gamers. Which is saying something.

I disagree with the fact that 90% of the computer market is games. There are still more computer illiterate people than literate. It may not seem like it here on the internet, but it's true. I know more about computers than 95% of the people I interact with in real life on a day-to-day basis. The primary use of computers is 1. Internet and 2. Office programs. Probably followed very closely by Photos. Linux does do all of these. But I do agree, that it's still not user-friendly enough. It's getting there, though. Sabayon, Ubuntu, and some others have made huge steps towards that.

Still, Linux is not going to be much of a competitor until either A. 90% of the compatibility issues are solved, or B. A major PC distributor starts shipping computers with Linux on them. I say option B is our best hope. Most people don't have the time/patience/skill to install their own distro and get it working the way they want. If a manufacturer ships a PC that has Linux, Linux-compatible hardware, and all the drivers pre-installed, it would make the switch so much easier for people. No messing around, no browsing hundreds of forum posts trying to fix something... just turn it on and go. Easy. Plus it'd be much more affordable since you don't have to pay for M$ Vi$ta, M$ OffiÂ¢e, and Norton AntiViru$. And you can get the same performance out of a computer with less power. Cheap. Throw in Beryl and some more free games, and that takes care of the Fun part. Cheap, Easy, Fun, and you've just won yourself a huge customer base. This is how Linux can succeed. And once Linux starts becoming more popular, companies will have no choice but to make their software and drivers compatible with Linux.

Although, despite how much I want everyone to have Linux, there are a few things I will miss. I'll miss seeming smart when telling people about Linux. I'll miss seeing people's eyes pop when I show them Beryl (since everyone would already have it).

Also, if Linux does actually a huge amount of popularity, you can be sure you'll start seeing a lot more Linux-specific viruses and malware. It will never be as bad as Windows, but I might actually have to *gasp* install an anti-virus program eventually. 8C But until then (which I think is still a long ways away) I am content. :3

(And a big LOL at Time's article on Vista. Yet Ballmer still blames pirates for Vista's poor sales. I mean, it couldn't possibly be his OS... It has 3D ALT-TAB! What more could people want?)

First off ive used Vista and it sucks i had alot of trouble getting software to install on it and im not seeing all the cool graphical stuff that i heard about wheres it at. Also i dont know if any of yall have tried it out didnt read all the replies but all of the little gadgets are the same stuff you can get on kde reall original bill. I think that vista is going to bring more people to linux and i know alot of you might not like it but distros like linspire and ubuntu which are easy to use and well at least linspire has cnr which is very user friendly for new people used to linux. so i think if anything vista hopefully will help linux. hell its the reason i decided to start looking at linux again after about 4 years. i may be just talking out of my ass i dunno thats what i think though.

dyingmuppet wrote:Hey, I have Windows Vista installed in VMware:P and it really sucks, why would you ever go back to windows??Beryl BEATS Vista's ass like hell

Oh I agree! The problem is not that Linux is not as good as M$, its that almost nobody knows about it and it takes people out of their comfort zone. Most people have become used to being fed a daily diet of M$. Its on 90% of the worlds systems (or until just recently, used to be) -- Grade Schools, Middle Schools, High Schools, Universities, Work Places.. etc. Its become an ingrained part of peoples learning process and will be hard as hell to dislodge. This is not necessarily a bad thing. If Linux goes mainstream I fear for its future. I fear for the future of Open Source as well. Lawsuits will start to fly and all those wonderful "free" distro's we all have come to love so much, might not remain free for much longer as the temptation of the almighty $$ starts to gnaw away at those who stand to gain from selling service for them... Perhaps things are best left as they remain.